At least, that was the working title of the abstract I've submitted for the 2008 ETS meeting in Rhode Island this November. But I couldn't bring myself to actually make that the title of the paper. So here's what I've submitted:
Title: The Discourse Function of αλλα in Non-Negative Contexts
Abstract: In a paper presented to the ETS in November 2007,
Dr. Steven Runge discussed the use of the conjunction αλλα in negative Counterpoint-Point Sets ("
Teaching Them What NOT To Do: The Nuances of Negation in the Greek New Testament"). The basic pattern is that of an exceptive ου or μη clause followed by a clause introduced by αλλα; the effect in English translation is "not ... but ..." [
an example is in Mark 16.5-7, which I blogged about earlier — RB].
While most of the instances of αλλα in the Greek New Testament occur in negative Counterpoint-Point sets, this does not account for all instances of αλλα. What is happening with αλλα in these other contexts? Is the discourse function of αλλα in these contexts similar, or is there something different going on?
Instances of αλλα in the Greek New Testament in non-negative contexts will be examined with the hope of further describing the function of αλλα within the discourse. Additionally, standard Greek grammars will be mined for further insight into the function of αλλα, as will the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The goal is not to isolate additional "senses" or "classes" of αλλα, but, building upon Runge's previous work, the goal is to examine further instances of αλλα in differing contexts to contribute toward a more precise overall understanding of the general function of αλλα within the discourse.
We'll see if the abstract is accepted. Either way, I've already started culling through the 638 instances of αλλα in the New Testament (500+ of which appear in a negative pairing, it seems), working through the section on αλλα in Denniston's Greek Particles (amazon.com), reading Heckert on αλλα (amazon.com); I'll probably be braving the lexicon articles (BDAG, LSJ, LouwNida) sometime over the next week; and hitting the grammars (BDF, Moulton-Howard-Turner, Robertson, Porter's Idioms, Moule's Idioms, Wallace; perhaps Young's Intermediate Grammar) as well.
Sounds like fun, huh?
Update (2008-03-11): Responding to some comments: Yes, I do plan on posting the paper, but likely in conjunction with or just after the conference in November. But I'll probably blog some thoughts along the way that may or may not make it into the paper. On other resource (e.g. Thrall); perhaps. There is no shortage of items to look at for background. But the paper isn't a review of how people have described αλλα in the past, so there has to be a limit to the background section of the paper. I just don't know what that is yet (beyond standard lexica and grammars, Denniston, and Heckert)